Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars

On 7/5/2026 8:59 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On 04/07/2026 22:12, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/4/2026 12:11 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2026 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The English word "incomplete" establishes the base
>>>> meaning (parent node) in the knowledge ontology.
>>>>
>>>> I will not tolerate deceptive terms-of-the-art.
>>>
>>> In other words, you intend to lie by misusing definitions.
>>>
>> Math undecidable: The inability to translate
>> incoherent nonsense into a truth value.
>> LP := ~True(LP)
>>   G := ~Provable(PA, G)
> 
> 
> Is it right to call that "incoherent"?
> 
> "incoherent" would seem to me to be reservable for a purported
> demonstration of a deduction which is constructed of two deductions that
> do not validly lead from one to the other.
> 
> "valueless" is accurate, technically, but it has an ordinary economic
> sense similar to "worthless".
> 
> "non-normalisable" is accurate and, more usefully, so is

That is one of the proof theoretic semantics way of
saying it. There are many other PTS ways of saying it.

> "non-head-normalisable" (and some other related terms).
> 
> "loopy" might be useful but readers would probably go insane at you
> because they go insane at much less.
> 
> 


-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).